Dataset Information

High-flow nasal cannula for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: systematic reviews of effectiveness and its risks of aerosolization, dispersion, and infection transmission.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:We conducted two World Health Organization-commissioned reviews to inform use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We synthesized the evidence regarding efficacy and safety (review 1), as well as risks of droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, and associated transmission (review 2) of viral products. SOURCE:Literature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese databases, and medRxiv. Review 1: we synthesized results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Review 2: we narratively summarized findings from studies evaluating droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, or infection transmission associated with HFNC. For both reviews, paired reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:No eligible studies included COVID-19 patients. Review 1: 12 RCTs (n = 1,989 patients) provided low-certainty evidence that HFNC may reduce invasive ventilation (relative risk [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.99) and escalation of oxygen therapy (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98) in patients with respiratory failure. Results provided no support for differences in mortality (moderate certainty), or in-hospital or intensive care length of stay (moderate and low certainty, respectively). Review 2: four studies evaluating droplet dispersion and three evaluating aerosol generation and dispersion provided very low certainty evidence. Two simulation studies and a crossover study showed mixed findings regarding the effect of HFNC on droplet dispersion. Although two simulation studies reported no associated increase in aerosol dispersion, one reported that higher flow rates were associated with increased regions of aerosol density. CONCLUSIONS:High-flow nasal cannula may reduce the need for invasive ventilation and escalation of therapy compared with COT in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. This benefit must be balanced against the unknown risk of airborne transmission.

SUBMITTER: Agarwal A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7294988 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

High-flow nasal cannula for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: systematic reviews of effectiveness and its risks of aerosolization, dispersion, and infection transmission.

Agarwal Arnav A Basmaji John J Muttalib Fiona F Granton David D Chaudhuri Dipayan D Chetan Devin D Hu Malini M Fernando Shannon M SM Honarmand Kimia K Bakaa Layla L Brar Sonia S Rochwerg Bram B Adhikari Neill K NK Lamontagne Francois F Murthy Srinivas S Hui David S C DSC Gomersall Charles C Mubareka Samira S Diaz Janet V JV Burns Karen E A KEA Couban Rachel R Ibrahim Quazi Q Guyatt Gordon H GH Vandvik Per O PO

Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie 20200615 9

<h4>Purpose</h4>We conducted two World Health Organization-commissioned reviews to inform use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We synthesized the evidence regarding efficacy and safety (review 1), as well as risks of droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, and associated transmission (review 2) of viral products.<h4>Source</h4>Literature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese databases, and medRxiv. Review 1: we ...[more]

PMID: 32542464

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been recommended as a suitable choice for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure before mechanical ventilation (MV); however, delaying MV with HFNC therapy is still a dilemma between the technique and clinical management during the ongoing pandemic. Methods: Retrospective analysis of COVID-19 patients treated with HFNC therapy from four hospitals of Wuhan, China. Demographic information and clinical variables before, at, and shortly after HFNC initiation were collected and analyzed. A risk-stratification model of HFNC failure (the need for MV) was developed with the 324 patients of Jin Yin-tan Hospital and validated its accuracy with 69 patients of other hospitals. Results: Among the training cohort, the median duration of HFNC therapy was 6 (range, 3-11), and 147 experienced HFNC failure within 7 days of HFNC initiation. Early predictors of HFNC failure on the basis of a multivariate regression analysis included age older than 60 years [odds ratio (OR), 1.93; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.08-3.44; p = 0.027; 2 points], respiratory rate-oxygenation index (ROX) <5.31 (OR, 5.22; 95% CI, 2.96-9.20; p < 0.001; 5 points) within the first 4 h of HFNC initiation, platelets < 125 × 109/L (OR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.46-6.35; p = 0.003; 3 points), and interleukin 6 (IL-6) >7.0 pg/mL (OR, 3.34; 95% CI, 1.79-6.23; p < 0.001; 3 points) at HFNC initiation. A weighted risk-stratification model of these predictors showed sensitivity of 80.3%, specificity of 71.2% and a better predictive ability than ROX index alone [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.807 vs. 0.779, p < 0.001]. Six points were used as a cutoff value for the risk of HFNC failure stratification. The HFNC success probability of patients in low-risk group (84.2%) was 9.84 times that in the high-risk group (34.8%). In the subsequent validation cohort, the AUC of the model was 0.815 (0.71-0.92). Conclusions: Aged patients with lower ROX index, thrombocytopenia, and elevated IL-6 values are at increased risk of HFNC failure. The risk-stratification models accurately predicted the HFNC failure and early stratified COVID-19 patients with HFNC therapy into relevant risk categories.

Project description:BackgroundOptimal flow settings during high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy are unknown. We investigated the optimal flow settings during HFNC therapy based on breathing pattern and tidal inspiratory flows in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF).MethodsWe conducted a prospective clinical study in adult hypoxemic patients treated by HFNC with a fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) ≥ 0.4. Patient's peak tidal inspiratory flow (PTIF) was measured and HFNC flows were set to match individual PTIF and then increased by 10 L/min every 5-10 min up to 60 L/min. FIO2 was titrated to maintain pulse oximetry (SpO2) of 90-97%. SpO2/FIO2, respiratory rate (RR), ROX index [(SpO2/FIO2)/RR], and patient comfort were recorded after 5-10 min on each setting. We also conducted an in vitro study to explore the relationship between the HFNC flows and the tracheal FIO2, peak inspiratory and expiratory pressures.ResultsForty-nine patients aged 58.0 (SD 14.1) years were enrolled. At enrollment, HFNC flow was set at 45 (38, 50) L/min, with an FIO2 at 0.62 (0.16) to obtain an SpO2/FIO2 of 160 (40). Mean PTIF was 34 (9) L/min. An increase in HFNC flows up to two times of the individual patient's PTIF, incrementally improved oxygenation but the ROX index plateaued with HFNC flows of 1.34-1.67 times the individual PTIF. In the in vitro study, when the HFNC flow was set higher than PTIF, tracheal peak inspiratory and expiratory pressures increased as HFNC flow increased but the FIO2 did not change.ConclusionMean PTIF values in most patients with AHRF were between 30 and 40 L/min. We observed improvement in oxygenation with HFNC flows set above patient PTIF. Thus, a pragmatic approach to set optimal flows in patients with AHRF would be to initiate HFNC flow at 40 L/min and titrate the flow based on improvement in ROX index and patient tolerance.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03738345). Registered on November 13th, 2018. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03738345?term=NCT03738345&draw=2&rank=1.

Project description:BackgroundNasal High Flow (NHF) therapy delivers flows of heated humidified gases up to 60 LPM (litres per minute) via a nasal cannula. Particles of oral/nasal fluid released by patients undergoing NHF therapy may pose a cross-infection risk, which is a potential concern for treating COVID-19 patients.MethodsLiquid particles within the exhaled breath of healthy participants were measured with two protocols: (1) high speed camera imaging and counting exhaled particles under high magnification (6 participants) and (2) measuring the deposition of a chemical marker (riboflavin-5-monophosphate) at a distance of 100 and 500 mm on filter papers through which air was drawn (10 participants). The filter papers were assayed with HPLC. Breathing conditions tested included quiet (resting) breathing and vigorous breathing (which here means nasal snorting, voluntary coughing and voluntary sneezing). Unsupported (natural) breathing and NHF at 30 and 60 LPM were compared.ResultsImaging: During quiet breathing, no particles were recorded with unsupported breathing or 30 LPM NHF (detection limit for single particles 33 μm). Particles were detected from 2 of 6 participants at 60 LPM quiet breathing at approximately 10% of the rate caused by unsupported vigorous breathing. Unsupported vigorous breathing released the greatest numbers of particles. Vigorous breathing with NHF at 60 LPM, released half the number of particles compared to vigorous breathing without NHF.Chemical marker tests: No oral/nasal fluid was detected in quiet breathing without NHF (detection limit 0.28 μL/m3). In quiet breathing with NHF at 60 LPM, small quantities were detected in 4 out of 29 quiet breathing tests, not exceeding 17 μL/m3. Vigorous breathing released 200-1000 times more fluid than the quiet breathing with NHF. The quantities detected in vigorous breathing were similar whether using NHF or not.ConclusionDuring quiet breathing, 60 LPM NHF therapy may cause oral/nasal fluid to be released as particles, at levels of tens of μL per cubic metre of air. Vigorous breathing (snort, cough or sneeze) releases 200 to 1000 times more oral/nasal fluid than quiet breathing (p < 0.001 with both imaging and chemical marker methods). During vigorous breathing, 60 LPM NHF therapy caused no statistically significant difference in the quantity of oral/nasal fluid released compared to unsupported breathing. NHF use does not increase the risk of dispersing infectious aerosols above the risk of unsupported vigorous breathing. Standard infection prevention and control measures should apply when dealing with a patient who has an acute respiratory infection, independent of which, if any, respiratory support is being used.Clinical trial registrationACTRN12614000924651.

Project description:BackgroundStandard high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a respiratory support device widely used to manage post-extubation hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (hARF) due to greater comfort, oxygenation, alveolar recruitment, humidification, and reduction of dead space, as compared to conventional oxygen therapy. On the contrary, the effects of the new asymmetrical HFNC interface (Optiflow® Duet system (Fisher & Paykel, Healthcare, Auckland, New Zealand) is still under discussion. Our aim is investigating whether the use of asymmetrical HFNC interface presents any relevant difference, compared with the standard configuration, on lung aeration (as assessed by end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI) measured by electrical impedance tomography (EIT)), diaphragm ultrasound thickening fraction (TFdi) and excursion (DE), ventilatory efficiency (estimated by corrected minute ventilation (MV)), gas exchange, dyspnea, and comfort.MethodsPilot physiological crossover randomized controlled study enrolling 20 adults admitted to the Intensive Care unit, invasively ventilated for at least 24 h, and developing post-extubation hARF, i.e., PaO2/set FiO2 < 300 mmHg during Venturi mask (VM) within 120 min after extubation. Each HFNC configuration was applied in a randomized 60 min sequence at a flow rate of 60 L/min.ResultsGlobal EELI, TFdi, DE, ventilatory efficiency, gas exchange and dyspnea were not significantly different, while comfort was greater during asymmetrical HFNC support, as compared to standard interface (10 [7-10] and 8 [7-9], p-value 0.044).ConclusionsIn post-extubation hARF, the use of the asymmetrical HFNC, as compared to standard HFNC interface, slightly improved patient comfort without affecting lung aeration, diaphragm activity, ventilatory efficiency, dyspnea and gas exchange.Clinical trial numberClinicalTrial.gov.Registration numberNCT05838326 (01/05/2023).New & noteworthyThe asymmetrical high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (Optiflow® Duet system (Fisher & Paykel, Healthcare, Auckland, New Zealand) provides greater comfort as compared to standard interface; while their performance in term of lung aeration, diaphragm activity, ventilatory efficiency, dyspnea, and gas exchange is similar.

Dataset Information

High-flow nasal cannula for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: systematic reviews of effectiveness and its risks of aerosolization, dispersion, and infection transmission.

Publications

High-flow nasal cannula for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: systematic reviews of effectiveness and its risks of aerosolization, dispersion, and infection transmission.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets